What’s up with the pseudoscience assault on hydroxychloroquine?

Because President Trump suggested that it might be an effective remedy against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been endlessly bad-mouthed and vilified by leftists, the mainstream media, the World Health Organization (WHO), and many others that are coincidentally pushing remdesivir and vaccines instead.

In a research paper he published for open peer-review, Leo Goldstein breaks down the assault on hydroxychloroquine and the seemingly endless stream of pseudoscience that is driving it. His view is that HCQ works and science proves it, and that studies opposing it “have been misinterpreted, (are) invalid, or worse.”

Along with azithromycin (AZ), HCQ is one of the safest and most tested prescription drugs on the market, Goldstein contends. It is also very inexpensive, which means that the pharmaceutical industry does not rake in “blockbuster” profits from its sale – this being another reason why many are discouraging the use of HCQ for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).

One study that sought to discredit HCQ intentionally left out zinc, a necessary cofactor for its safety, which led to the negative conclusions the authors desired. As it turns out, their aim is to redirect people’s attention to remdesivir, a major HCQ competitor.

The “COVID-19 Treatment Panel” at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) just so happens to have financial ties to Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer of remdesivir. But as is usually the case, this financial conflict of interest was never publicly disclosed, and has only been uncovered by researchers like Goldstein who are interested in uncovering the truth.

Fake science studies continue to smear hydroxychloroquine and the mainstream media is eating them right up

Though these and others special interests are actively discouraging the use of HCQ, AZ, zinc, and various other remedies that show promise in the fight against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), the public needs to remember that both HCQ and AZ, at least, are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This means that doctors can legally prescribe them for use against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).

One of the biggest supporting pieces of evidence that HCQ is effective against this pandemic is that it was supposedly used to treat “virtually every COVID-19 patient in New York,” to quote Peter Navarro, New York being the major global hotspot for the pandemic outside of Wuhan, China, where it originated.

Once HCQ started to be used in New York, the number of deaths in the state decreased significantly, reports indicate. Even so, the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel took a “negative-ambivalent stance” against the drug, again because it has a vested interest in seeing remdesivir prescribed instead.

“This surprising stance was taken contrary to the ample evidence of the efficacy and safety of HCQ and despite absent evidence of its harm,” Goldstein notes. “The panel also strongly recommended against the use of hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (AZ), the combination of choice among practitioners.”

The very same day that the panel took this negative-ambivalent stance, a paper was published in the journal medRxiv suggesting that hydroxychloroquine is not only ineffective but also harmful. This paper has yet to be peer-reviewed and it was authored by unqualified people with conflicts of interest.

But the mainstream media ran with it, spreading misinformation and lies about the dangers and ineffectiveness of HCQ. Meanwhile, this same mainstream media continues to push remdesivir as a safer and more effective alternative, even though there is scant, if any, evidence to support this claim.

The FDA has also intervened with its own warning against the use of HCQ in treating the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19). The Big Pharma-backed agency cannot force doctors not to prescribe HCQ, but it is strongly urging them not to because it, too, is a bought-and-paid-for deep state entity with major conflicts of interest.

All content posted on this site is protected under Free Speech. Deception.news is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Deception.news assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.